You are incorrect on both counts.
I wrote at considerable length last week regarding the issues on the
client. They are a very big deal.
And, prompted by your mail, I just went and double checked the server
issue: the DNS server in Windows Server 2003 does NOT support the syntax
of RFC 3597 or any other means to define instances of new RR types in
either its GUI editor or in its zone file text parser.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org [mailto:owner-ietf-
mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Gordon Fecyk
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 1:21 PM
To: ietf-mxcomp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Wild card MXes
Clarity: it's not only Windows clients, but also Windows DNS servers
that are at issue here.
Bob, I'm actually at a loss on this. Windows clients aren't a big
deal as
it's easy to write a DNS UDP client to query an arbitrary record type.
But
a
lack of support in the servers? I thought NT4 and Win2K DNS were
tested as
compliant with RFC 3597 section 3 according to an earlier post.
Or am I missing something?
I know Roy only tested some things, but I was under the impression he
tested
what MARID could potentially query of a compliant DNS server.
--
PGP key (0x0AFA039E):
<http://www.pan-am.ca/consulting(_at_)pan-am(_dot_)ca(_dot_)asc>
Sometimes it's hard to tell where the game ends and where reality
bites,
er, begins. <http://vmyths.com/resource.cfm?id=50&page=1>
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of
roy(_at_)dnss(_dot_)ec
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 12:14
To: ietf-mxcomp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: implementation compliance [RE: Reuse of TXT]
[snip]
COMPLIANT:
BIND 8 (>= version 8.3.0)
BIND 9 (>= version 9.1.0)
Microsoft NT DNS
Microsoft server 2000
Microsoft server 2003
Nominum ANS
Nominum CNS
TinyDNS
NSD (>= version 2.0.1)
PowerDNS (>= version 2.9.11)
MaraDNS [recursive only]
totd
dnscache
Net::DNS (>= version 0.44)